Water Power Peer Review

1. Water Power Peer Review Mirko Previsic RE Vision Consulting Ph: 916-977 3970, Email: mirko@re-vision.net 10-6-2011 An Assessment of Lifecycle Cost in the U.S. over Time

2. Purpose, Objectives, & Integration Purpose • Develop a solid understanding of Lifecycle cost of Wave, Tidal, River, and Ocean Current Technologies • Where can we extract how much energy at what cost? • Identify cost of electricity targets to enable technology adoption in market place. Relation to Program Mission • Mission-critical building block to provide an answer to the commercial and taxpayer value of this sector. • Justify Investments into this sector, both public and private • How critical are these resources to long-term energy security in this country? Integration with other Projects - Project is tightly integrated with Reference Model Project

3. Technical Approach – Parametric Model • Lifecycle Cost Assessment using Parametric Techno-Economic Models. How does cost change as a function of: Resource characteristics, site characteristic, and deployment scale (both project as well as cumulative). Built on previous modeling efforts for wide range of clients including: Oil&Gas, Electric Utilities, Device Developers, Investors, Engineering Outfits. Data from roughly 40 previous studies (public and non-public). • Collaboration with Device Manufacturers to refine design, and performance data • Independent Cost Assessment of a set of reference devices at US-based reference sites. • Independent Focus Area studies to refine performance and cost data including: • Construction Cost of Fabricated Steel Elements • Marine Operational Activities • Mooring Design Configuration and Cost • Development of Suitable Cost and Extraction Density Curves for Application to Resource Extraction Models

4. Technical Approach – Resource Data • Resource Data Integrated into GIS Model for: • EPRI Lead Wave Resource Assessment • Georgia Tech Lead Tidal Resource Assessment • Ocean Current Resource Data from HYCOM • River data is not yet available from EPRI lead resource assessment team. No other decent options. • Electric Grid Superimposed onto Resource • ReEDS Capacity Expansion Model to Establish set of Adoption Scenarios through 2030 and 2050 • What levelized cost target is required to allow for substantial adoption of technology in market place? • Where are MHK technologies deployed?

5. Plan, Schedule, & Budget Schedule & Budget • Initiation date: April 1st 2010 • Planned completion date: December 31st 2011 • Total Budget: $500k • Spent as of 9-30-11: $356k • Partner: NREL, PCCI

6. Detailed Project Plan

7. Accomplishments and Results

8. Accomplishments and Results

9. Accomplishments and Results

10. Accomplishments and Results

11. Accomplishments and Results • Energy supply curves associate resource potential with technology cost at national and regional levels. • Incorporate additional costs of accessing nearby transmission grid • Avoid potential conflict areas (e.g., shipping lanes, environmentally sensitive areas)

12. Challenges to Date Resource Data largely Insufficient for adequate Supply Curve modeling • No data available for river resource • Extraction Effects on Ocean Current Resource largely unknown • Large Uncertainties to the extractable potential from tidal remains to be addressed • Limited design data exists for Ocean Current devices to establish cost profiles Solution • In discussion with DoE HQ decided to not develop a supply-curve for river hydrokinetic • Established extractable resource methodology for tidal power • Developed our own Ocean Current Resource Assessment using Hycom with some validation points • Developed concept design for Ocean Current design => Refinements expected under Reference Model efforts

13. Next Steps Project is almost complete and final report will be delivered to DoE by 12-31-11. Future Efforts Needed : • Resource data becoming available for river and ocean current by next summer needs to be integrated into supply curve models. • Efforts identified short-comings in the suitability of resource assessments completed Todateas it relates to the development of supply curves. Hopefully such short-comings will be addressed in future resource assessment iterations. • Variability of MHK technology output needs to be represented in capacity expansion models; scenarios exploring deployment of MHK technologies in electric sector need to be further explored. • Cost Models need to be refined to be suitable for benchmarking. Uncertainties in particular as it pertains to the following: • Wave Power Device Performance • Extreme Loads and Design Factors • Structural Design • Reliability and Operational Costs • Todate, data was developed with input from: 4 WEC device developers, 4 tidal developers, 2 Ocean Current Developer, and 2 River Hydrokinetic models. Limited US developer input Todate. More is needed!